--- a/ProgTutorial/Tactical.thy Mon Apr 13 08:30:48 2009 +0000
+++ b/ProgTutorial/Tactical.thy Wed Apr 15 13:11:08 2009 +0000
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@
ML{*fun my_print_tac ctxt thm =
let
- val _ = warning (str_of_thm_no_vars ctxt thm)
+ val _ = writeln (str_of_thm_no_vars ctxt thm)
in
Seq.single thm
end*}
@@ -537,11 +537,11 @@
val str_of_prems = str_of_thms_no_vars context prems
val str_of_schms = str_of_cterms context (snd schematics)
- val _ = (warning ("params: " ^ str_of_params);
- warning ("schematics: " ^ str_of_schms);
- warning ("assumptions: " ^ str_of_asms);
- warning ("conclusion: " ^ str_of_concl);
- warning ("premises: " ^ str_of_prems))
+ val _ = (writeln ("params: " ^ str_of_params);
+ writeln ("schematics: " ^ str_of_schms);
+ writeln ("assumptions: " ^ str_of_asms);
+ writeln ("conclusion: " ^ str_of_concl);
+ writeln ("premises: " ^ str_of_prems))
in
no_tac
end*}
@@ -583,7 +583,7 @@
expects that the subgoal is solved completely. Since in the function @{ML
sp_tac} we returned the tactic @{ML no_tac}, the subproof obviously
fails. The question-mark allows us to recover from this failure in a
- graceful manner so that the warning messages are not overwritten by an
+ graceful manner so that the output messages are not overwritten by an
``empty sequence'' error message.
If we continue the proof script by applying the @{text impI}-rule
@@ -1172,7 +1172,7 @@
in
s |> separate "\n"
|> implode
- |> warning
+ |> writeln
end*}
text_raw {*
\end{isabelle}
@@ -1494,7 +1494,7 @@
ML %linenosgray{*fun fail_sp_aux simpset redex =
let
val ctxt = Simplifier.the_context simpset
- val _ = warning ("The redex: " ^ (str_of_cterm ctxt redex))
+ val _ = writeln ("The redex: " ^ (str_of_cterm ctxt redex))
in
NONE
end*}
@@ -1565,7 +1565,7 @@
ML{*fun fail_sp_aux' simpset redex =
let
val ctxt = Simplifier.the_context simpset
- val _ = warning ("The redex: " ^ (Syntax.string_of_term ctxt redex))
+ val _ = writeln ("The redex: " ^ (Syntax.string_of_term ctxt redex))
in
NONE
end*}